🚀 go-pugleaf

On Sat, 26 Feb 2005, ~krp~ wrote:

> "Carol Lee Smith" <human@csd.uwm.edu> wrote in message 
> news:Pine.OSF.3.96.1050225164526.5094D-100000@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu...

> > On Thu, 24 Feb 2005, ~krp~ wrote:

> >> "Carol Lee Smith" <human@csd.uwm.edu> wrote in message
> >> news:Pine.OSF.3.96.1050223222353.20515E-100000@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu...

> >> >> > Interesting.  I would like to read original source documents on this
> >> >> > before I venture an opinion.

> >> >>  Carol LIE LIE LIE LIE LIE LIE LIE......

> >> > No.  It is not a lie at all.  I said that I would like to read original
> >> > source documents on this before I venture an opinion, and that is the
> >> > absolute truth.

> >> Well Carol THEN that is YOUR obligation. The FACT is that Chucrchill's
> >> claims that a "biological earfare unit ofd the U.S. Army plotted to 
> >> commit
> >> genicide on the Indian people" citing the 1837 events was a BALD FACE 
> >> LIE..
> >> NEVER HAPPEND! "original source documents' on a FICTITIOUS EVENT Carol? 
> >> HOW? FROM WHERE?
> 
> > Before I comment on what Ward Churchhill wrote, I would prefer to read
> > what he wrote.  I would not venture to form an opinion on what you say he
> > wrote.

> THEN READ IT or STFU!

> >> >> You asked for "REFERENTS" and I
> >> >> provided them you SNIPPED them AGAIN!
> >> >> Disregarded them or rationalized them.

> >> > I snipped what were allegations.  I did not snip proof.

> >> Carol YOU don't get to decide what is proof. I sourced my statements. If
> >> Churchill's former wife wrote an article some years before (COPYRIGHTED 
> >> AND
> >> PUBLISHED) and then Churchill later included her work and claimed it as 
> >> HIS is very much PROOF that he LIED.

> > Perhaps you could provide a link to information about this.

> I DID SILLY! Now you will AGAIN claim I did not.

Concerning Churchill's former wife, this is what you posted:

--------------
http://www.observer.com/pages/observer.asp

" ... He has also been accused of three instances of plagiarism, one of
them from his former wife." 
-----------

That appears to be from a news report of accusations, not proof of
anything.

At that link, the words "Churchill" and "wife" do not appear.

> >> >> Must I post them EVERY DAMNED MESSAGE?
> >> >> This gets SOOOOOOO OLD and NO annoying.

> >> > Tough.

> >> No Carol PROOF that you are DISHONEST!  Thanks for TWICE in a short space
> >> that you DELETE things that you don't like and then go on to claim that 
> >> no proof was offered at all. THAT little girl is LYING!

> > I don't consider your comments as any sort of proof.
 
> I gave about half a dozen links Carol, But go ahead and LIE and say I did 
> not!

Links to news reports are not proof.

> >> >> I posted the references to where Churchill's claims of Indian heritage
> >> >> are rebuked.

> >> > I have seen no proof either way.

> >> Yes Carol - in psychology we call that "living in denial."  It's all 
> >> there.
> >> Churchill makes SPECIFIC CLAIMS... That he got his indian blood from a
> >> SOURCE, that source denies the claim, saying he is NOT indian but 
> >> "white."

> > Of what "SOURCE" do you speak.  Are you suggesting that his
> > great-great-grandfather came to you in a dream?
 
> READ THE DAMN ARTICLES CAROL!! Or just LIE and say I never posted
> the links to them.. You do THAT so werll and so FREQUENTLY!

"DAMN ARTICLES" ??  News reports?  Do you believe everything you read in
News reports and "DAMN ARTICLES"?

From what "SOURCE" did he claim he got indian blood?
 
> >> To YOU that is NOT PROOF! To the THINKING world (the not bullshit 
> >> infested)
> >> that IS PROOF!  He has consistenly LIED his ass off about Indian 
> >> heritage.
> >> Maybe I am sensitive to this becayse my first wife WAS 50% native 
> >> American.

> > So, she wasn't a "keeper" ??
 
>  Not when she starte don the "fire water" and drugs she wasn't. My 
> present wife is "indiginous" from Cuba. Meaning that when the Spaniards 
> (Columbus landed in Cuba) her family was there to welcome them.

> > My son-in-law is 100% indigenous.  And I think he is a keeper.
 
> I wonder if he thinks the same about you.

Who cares what you wonder.
 
> >> Complete with tribal registery [sic] so i know what a REAL native
> > American is, and I have three daughters that are also on tribal roles. So
> > cut your  BULLSHITTING Ms., Smith! After a while it gets offensive. The
> > man if he has  ANY (and I suspect I have as much as HE does) it isn't
> > much. My present wife  (Cuban) has "indiginous" [sic] blood. She is
> > mostly of Spanish heritage but has  some native blood as well. Her
> > ancestors were there to welcome Columbus when  he landed in Cuba.>>
 
> > Thank you so much for the pithy family history.
 
> Glad you enjoyed it. I never make much of the fact that I have some "native" 
> blood WAY BACK, actually closer than Churchill and more of it. Me no claimum 
> to be redman!  Heap big pow wow at the teepee tonight...!  HUMMM!
 
> >> >> I posted where even his former wife accuses him of plagiarizing HER
> >> >> earlier published works and claiming them as his own.
 
> >> > Are you saying that what you posted was absolute proof that any
> >> > allegations by his wife were true?

> >> Well some things are FACTS Caol
 
> > The name's Carol.
 
> OH look she found another Typo, I do that when I go too fast Carol
 
> >> no matter how they upset your EXTREMIST political views.
 
> > Your crystal ball is cracked.
 
> I don't need one all I need to do is read your DAILY VENOM!

You may, true to form, make any accusations you would like.  
 
I doubt anyone would believe your claims of what I said for truth without
checking the archives to see what I actually have said.

> >> The woman's works were PUBLISHED as were that of Churchill.
> >> Media bveen all over that one. Her work came years first, publioshed,
> >> copyrights, then his work lifting whole secitions of hers with NO
> >> attribution. THAT is fraud and plagerism [sic].
 
> > You can provide cites for that information any time you are ready.
 
> I already did buty feel welcome to LIE AGAIN and claim I didn't.

The quotes you provided reside here:

Football Fans And Beyond: Brookhiser on Ward Churchill
... spread by traders. He has also been accused of three instances of
plagiarism, one of them from his former wife. Here, for connoisseurs ...
www.footballfansfortruth.us/archives/000750.html 

That is proof of nothing.  And the "link" leads to the article which
doesn't mention Churchill.
 
> > Until I read a reliable source, I have no opinion to share.  You can
> > continue to offer your opinion til the cows come home.  I am not
> > interested in forming an opinion based upon yours.

> Carol NO SOURCE that disagree with your INSANE BULLSHIT is ever "reliable" 
> to you!

Why is it you offer no direct quote from me?  Is it that you are imagining
what you attribute to me?

> And it is gets uncomfortable,

Huh?

> you just DENY ever having seen it
> no matter how many times your ugly nose is rubbed in it!

Having seen what?

 
> > > >> (ACADEMIC FRAUD
> >> >> CAROL!) Not to mention the FALSE claims of the U.S. Army biological
> >> >> warfare
> >> >> against the Indians being a product of his own mind.  NEVER HAPPENED
> >> >> CAROL!!

> >> > I never claimed it did happen.  I asked for detail and proof and 
> >> > evidence.
 
> >> Carol it did NOT happen.
 
> > See above.
 
> READ THE ARTICLES you were providde or LIE AGAIN and say they weren't 
> provided. Do what you ALWAYS do!

The links you provided PROVE nothing.
 
> > <snip Kenneth R. Pangborn's interpretation of history>

> It was RECORDED history Carol had you READ the links I provided you'd KNOW 
> that.

News articles and opinion pieces are not proof.

> But you are the little SNIT with the fingers in her ears going "LA LA 
> LA LA LA LA LA" so she doesn't have to see just HOW wrong she is!

> >> > I reserve judgment until I have it.  That is the only honorable stance, 
> >> > as far as I am concerned.
>  >> Carol........... it is a tap dance.

> > Why do you think it necessary I agree with you?
 
> Look STUPID it isn't **ME** you are agreeing with it is HISTORY and 
> FACTS!

What is Fact(s)?
 
> >> The evidence is there. What DID happen
> >> is well documented in history. The sources I gave had further LINKS to 
> >> that
> >> information. That YOU in your ARROGANCE refuse to follow those links is 
> >> NOT MY PROBLEM it is YOUR DISHONESTY!

> > To what dishonesty do you refer?
 
> Like your claims that NO LINKS have EVER been provided...

A direct quote, please.  You may have provided links. What did those 
links prove?

Please provide a direct quote in which I claimed that "NO LINKS have EVER
been provided." 
 
> > What did I insist was true which isn't?
 
> > Please provide appropriate citations.
 
> SHOVE IT!

Thank you for confirming you haven't provided proof of anything.